Templars
The d’Aumont Legend: This legend tells that Pierre d’Aumont, the Preceptor of Auvergne, together with a number of knights fled from France to Scotland disguised as operative masons. On their arrival they created a new order to preserve the ancient traditions of their soon to be defunct Order. This new order, adopted the name Franc Maçons – Franc (meaning French and Free) and Maçons in homage to their disguise. Thus, the Franc Maçons became known as the free Masons when the new order later travelled to England. 17 Disregarding for a moment the silly notion presented in the theory as to the etymology of the term Freemasons, let us unravel the story of d’Aumont, who the theory claims was Preceptor of Auvergne. While it is true that the Preceptor of Auvergne fled the arrests of 13 October 1307, his name was certainly not Pierre d’Aumont; rather, it was Imbert Blanke. Sometime after crossing into England, Blanke was arrested and later went on to play a role in the Templar trials of that country by defending his English Brethren. 18 Although Blanke was accompanied by a number of brethren, the number of Templars that accompanied his mythical counterpart Pierre d’Aumont is suspiciously Masonic. For in addition to d’Aumont, we find two commanders and five knights. 19 On first reading, this arrangement may not seem like anything particularly noteworthy; however, the following phrase familiar to Freemasons may make things a little clearer: ‘Three rule a lodge, five hold a lodge and seven or more make it perfect.’ In this sense, d’Aumont and the two commanders play a parallel in the myth to the Master and his two wardens, while the five knights represent the five masons who hold a lodge. Combined, the group form the seven or more who make it perfect. While this theory could easily be used to provide evidence of a Templar Freemason connection, it is my belief that the reverse is true and that von Hund’s d’Aumont legend was carefully crafted to bear a Masonic symbolism. Although the above scenario is speculation on the part of the author, it is not out of the realm of possibilities, for later Masonic traditions connected Masonic symbolism to Templar themes. In his short work The Templar Orders in Freemasonry, Arthur Edward Waite spoke of a ritual'' he had discovered called Le Chevalier du Temple,which he believed had been created sometime between 1768 and 1789. 20 Although the high degrees in Freemasonry were certainly in operation by this time, the Chevalier du Temple operated within the three Craft degrees. What is particularly unique about this ritual is that it does not paint a Templar perpetuation theory; rather, a number of survivingknights assembled and created Freemasonry to preserve the chivalry that had previously existed in their persecuted Order. The traditional history of the Order claimed that the originators of the secret combine required a period of seven years from its members to ensure that they were worthy. Three were spent as Apprentices, two as Fellowcraft and thefinal two as Master Masons. The obligation was taken in front of a black tomb representing that of the martyred de Molay. The lessons of the first degree related to the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre, the second to the Hospitallers of St John. The third degree, as would be expected, referred to the Templars, but particularly to the martyrdom of Jacques de Molay, who is the substitute for Hiram Abif. In the final degree, the part of the three ruffians is replaced with Clement V, Philip IV and the Prior of Montfaucon, the latter of whom had betrayed the Order to the king. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Master Mason Degree was the dual representation of the letters J.B.M., which Freemasons will recognise as the initials of the two pillars and the Master’s word. However, in the rituals of the Chevalier du Temple, the letters stood for the initials of Jacques Burgundus Molay. 21'' Sadly, there is little information on this interesting Templar twist on the Craft rituals outside of the information provided by Waite. Given its late date, it certainly could not have been among the earliest and the lack of information on the Order would seem to indicate that its traditional history never gained the popularity of the d’Aumont legend. It was Mackey’s belief that the Templar Freemason theories originated with Ramsay’s Oration, which, in turn, gave rise to the d’Aumont theory of Templar perpetuation. Let us then close this brief interlude on some of those theories with the words of Mackey on the matter: ‘The Chevalier Ramsay was the real author of the doctrine of the Templar origin of Freemasonry, and to him we are really indebted (if the debt have any value) for the D’Aumont legend. The source whence it sprang is tolerably satisfactory evidence of its fictitious character. The inventive genius of Ramsay, as exhibited in the fabrications of high degrees and Masonic legends, is well known. Nor, unfortunately for his reputation, can it be doubted that in the composition of his legends he cared but little for the support of history. If his genius, his learning, and his zeal had been consecrated, not to the formation of new Masonic systems, but to a profound investigation of the true origin of the Institution, viewed only from an authentic historical point, it is impossible to say what incalculable benefit would have been delved from his researches. The unproductive desert, which for three-fourths of a century spread over the continent, bearing no fruit except fanciful theories, absurd systems, and unnecessary degrees, would have been occupied in all probability by a race of Masonic scholars whose researches would have been directed to the creation of a genuine history, and much of the labours of our modern iconoclasts would have been spared. ‘The Masonic scholars of that long period, which began with Ramsay and has hardly yet wholly terminated, assumed for the most part rather the role of poets than of historians. They did not remember the wise saying of Cervantes that the poet may say or sing, not as things have been, but as they ought to have been, while the historian must write of them as they really were, and not as he thinks they ought to have been. And hence we have a mass of traditional rubbish, in which there is a great deal of falsehood with very little truth. ‘Of this rubbish is the Legend of Peter d’Aumont and his resuscitation of the Order of Knights Templars in Scotland. Without a particle of historical evidence for its support, it has nevertheless exerted a powerful influence on the Masonic organisation of even the present day. We find its effects looming out in the most important rites and giving a Templar form to many of the high degrees. And it cannot be doubted that the incorporation of Templarism into the modern Masonic system is mainly to be attributed to ideas suggested by this D’Aumont legend.’ References: -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar_%28Freemasonry%29 -http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/templars/knights_templars02.htm -http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/awards-organizations/freemason1.htm -http://www.knightstemplarfreemasonry.com/freemasonry_knights_templar.htm -http://www.masonicinfo.com/templars.htm -http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/masonic-legends.html Category:Templar Mysteries